128 
Indiana University Studies 
cil brought it immediately into the forefront in the nego- 
tiations which followed. At the time of the first conference 
between Gallatin and Canning, the former had not seen the 
British order, which apparently was first published in Eng- 
land on August 18, the day following this interview.^^ 
Upon learning of its promulgation, however, Gallatin at 
once wrote Canning, stating his inability to discover the 
motive for the British order or to assign a cause for the con- 
templated suppression of the colonial trade. With one excep- 
tion, there was not, he said, a single act of the United States 
which could be considered as not fulfilling the condition con- 
templated by the act of Parliament of July 5, 1825, as not 
placing the commerce and navigation of Great Britain and 
of her possessions abroad upon the footing of the most 
favored nation. This exception was the continuance of the 
discriminating tonnage duty of ninety-four cents per ton on 
British vessels and the additional duty of 10 per cent on goods 
imported into the United States from the British colonies in 
British vessels. But, he maintained, the countervailing duties 
which Great Britain had seen fit to place on American ves- 
sels and their goods entering the ports of the British colonies, 
and which were continued by the recent order, were ^'alone 
sufficient to place the British and American vessels employed 
in the intercourse between those colonies and the United 
States on the footing of the most perfect equality''. Why, 
therefore, he questioned, should the British Government, after 
having imposed the countervailing duties, also resort to the 
complete interdiction of the trade in American vessels be- 
tween the United States and the British colonies? In other 
words, having in her hands two remedies for one grievance, 
why, instead of applying the one or the other, did Great 
Britain apply both by the same order in council 
Canning's reply to Gallatin's note showed a desire to avoid 
any lengthy discussion of the recent order. In fact he stated 
at the outset his belief that it would ‘‘be highly advantageous 
to dispose at once of a subject which stands apart from all 
the other important subjects" to be discussed by the two 
governments.^^ Stating the British side of the case, he main- 
tained, to begin with, that the footing on which the colonial 
^2 Am. State Papers, For. Rel., VI, 249. 
« Ibid., VI, 249, 250. 
VI, 250. 
/ 
